The
terrorists who struck the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, altered the
course of national history and the presidency of George W. Bush in ways
no one had foreseen. Profound change was inevitable. The character of
that change was not.

This nation did not have to become as fractured,
overextended and isolated as it is today. It did not have
to define its military objectives so broadly — and everything else,
from civil liberties to economic and social needs, so narrowly. To
treat those changes as inevitable, or to dismiss them with a defiant
chorus of "We're at war!", is to deny that the most powerful nation on
Earth had any choice in shaping its own destiny. It did. The United
States chose to follow a course set by George W. Bush, and is weaker
today because of it.

Bush's initial response to the terrorist attack was his finest
achievement as president. His stirring and cogent words to Congress,
and his swift retaliation against the Taliban, stamped him in the
public mind as a strong and principled wartime leader. He was right to
define the war against Islamic fundamentalism as "a lengthy campaign
unlike any other we have ever seen" — a conflict of ideas, covert
operations and economic strategies as well as military action.

How quickly the promise of that moment dissipated. A president
who began with his eye fixed squarely where it belonged — on the
al-Qaida terrorist network — led the nation into a needless conflict in
Iraq, ignoring the objections of allies overseas and loyal opponents at
home. The central premise of that war — that Saddam Hussein possessed
weapons of mass destruction — was false. So was the claim, asserted in
explicit and subtle ways, of a connection between Saddam and al-Qaida.
So were the Bush team's calculations about the aftermath of the war,
particularly Vice President Dick Cheney's complacent assertion that the
Iraqis would greet us as "liberators." The United States will pay a
price for years because President Bush failed to anticipate, manage or
speak candidly about the consequences of the war.

How quickly the president forgot his own message to the nation
only nine days after the terrorist attacks: "We are in a fight for our
principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." The USA
PATRIOT Act constricted individual liberties in the name of preserving
freedom. The administration proclaimed (until the courts intervened)
its authority to detain without trial anyone it suspected of being an
"enemy combatant." Bush's choice for Attorney General, John Ashcroft,
was his all-too-willing accomplice in these and other infringements of
basic liberties.

A nation cannot wage war indefinitely while undermining its
economic and social foundations at home. Yet the president insisted
year after year on tax cuts, skewed disproportionately toward the
wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, while ratcheting up discretionary
domestic spending at a rate that distressed even his own natural
allies. The consequences were predictable: A slide from surplus into
deficit, made inevitable by the war, was deepened and lengthened by
Bush policies.

Installed by a court's decision after losing the popular vote,
Bush essentially thumbed his nose at his opponents, responding with
indifference or outright hostility to dissenting opinions and
inconvenient facts. He ignored the consensus of expert opinion on
scientific issues such as the global effects of climate change. He
chose to divide the country in wartime over peripheral issues such as
the Federal Marriage Amendment. His administration pushed through an
expensive new benefit — prescription drugs for senior citizens — by
concealing its true costs and squelching a government actuary who
wanted to tell the truth. He even opposed an inquiry into the causes of
the 9/11 attacks before agreeing, reluctantly and with conditions, to
accept it.

Asked about national divisions in last Wednesday's debate, the
president said this: "My biggest disappointment in Washington is how
partisan the town is." It was vintage Bush: Somehow the "town," not his
own heavy-handed governance, is responsible for divisiveness.

Of course the spirit of rancor is not all Bush's doing: Some
of his opponents, in the Democratic party and to the left, have been
shrill and occasionally hysterical in their criticism. But the
president's style of leadership in his first term raises legitimate
questions about what he might do with a second one, freed from the
obligation to stand for re-election. The next four years might also
give him an opportunity to reshape the Supreme Court in his own image
by appointing as many as four justices, with lasting consequences long
after he leaves office, on issues such as abortion and civil liberties.

George W. Bush brings to the war on terrorism a set of firm
principles — and a demonstrated inability to apply those principles in
leading the nation through one of the most trying times in its history.
The United States needs a fresh start, a new direction and a
rejuvenated sense of its own possibilities under new leadership. We
believe that the Democratic candidate, U.S. Sen. John Kerry of
Massachusetts, can provide that leadership.

•

John Kerry is a seasoned public servant with a clear-eyed
awareness of the real enemy in the war on terrorism: Islamic
fundamentalism. His immediate goals in Iraq are not substantially
different from Bush's — why should they be, when the options have
narrowed so dramatically? — but he understands, as Bush apparently does
not, the need for an honest and public confrontation with the facts
about our quandary in Iraq.

Those facts will constrain any president, Democrat or
Republican. But Kerry would have no need to defend old mistakes — and
no personal baggage as he attempts to rebuild our relationships with
old allies and our reputation in the world community. He'll also bring
a fresh perspective in dealing with other trouble spots on the global
map, such as Iran and North Korea.

On domestic issues, this race is no contest. Even some
old-fashioned conservatives recognize Kerry as the more fiscally
responsible of the two candidates, despite Bush's tired attempts to
hang the free-spending "liberal" tag around his opponent's neck. Kerry
is committed to a pay-as-you-go approach on new programs, he wants to
end tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, he vows to slash the deficit
during his first term in office, and he'd end tax incentives for
companies that ship jobs overseas.

Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, would revive
national debate on issues too long neglected during the war on
terrorism. On health care, Kerry far surpasses Bush in addressing a
central issue: Too many Americans have little or no access to health
insurance. He proposes to extend coverage to millions of Americans who
don't have it, and would enlist government to share the costs of
catastrophic coverage — a move that could bring down the cost of
insurance for millions of Americans.

On the energy issue, Kerry is a long-time advocate of higher
fuel-economy standards for automobiles and SUVs (and has bucked some of
his fellow Democrats on the issue). In marked contrast to Bush, he also
wants to mandate that a higher percentage of energy comes from
renewable sources within the next 15 years.

John Kerry may not have his opponent's instinctive ability to
connect with ordinary Americans. But he possesses three qualities even
more important at this hour in history — a willingness to assess the
facts honestly, to level with the public, and to tap the best minds
regardless of political affiliation. American presidents once sought
counsel from experts in the opposition party — and even appointed them
to Cabinet positions from time to time. Kerry shows refreshing signs of
a bipartisan spirit that Bush utterly lacks.

President Bush's early response to the terrorist attacks
offered some basis for hope that he might lead the United States
effectively through the ordeal of an unprecedented war. The wreckage of
that hope is now strewn across the country and around the world. Bring
on new leadership, a new vision and new hope. John Kerry is the
clear choice in the 2004 election.

The
Daily Camera is an E.W. Scripps Co. newspaper. Since 1912 editors
of the Scripps papers had met to make a group presidential
endorsement. That policy was changed with this election and
individual papers were allowed to make their own endorsements.
"We took it very seriously," stated editor Sue Deans.